New Research Suggest Google Book Search Helps Publishers A Lot More Than It Hurts

from the nice-to-see-some-data dept

For years, we've suggested that the fears of various publishers, that Google's book scanning/book search project was somehow a bad thing, were way overblown. We'd seen reports noting that putting your books into Google's book search often helped increase sales, and some enlightened publishers have started to realize the same thing. Yet, to hear some publishers and Google critics talk about it, you would think that the Google book scanning offering was the worst thing ever -- with some comparing Google to the Taliban. Yet, if you take a step back, and realize just how powerful and useful a universal searchable library of books would be, it's difficult to see how that's a bad thing.

First, it finds little
support for the much-discussed hypothesis of the Association of American Publishers and
Google's competitors that the mass digitization of major U.S. libraries will reduce the revenues
and profits of the most-affected publishers. In fact, the revenues of the publishers who believe
themselves to be most aggrieved by GBS, as measured by their willingness to file suit against
Google for copyright infringement, increased at a faster rate after the project began, as compared
to before its commencement. Their profits also increased significantly more on average from
2005 to 2008 than from 2001 to 2004. The increased rate of growth by publishers most affected
by GBS does not disappear when one compares it to the growth of the U.S. economy or to the
growth of retail sales. The continued rise in sales is remarkable when one considers the soaring
sales and prices of other entertainment products that may compete with books.

Second, this Article finds some support for the view that mass digitization and expanded
access to book previews may increase the revenues and profits of the most-affected publishers.
The evidence for this proposition takes the form of large increases in revenues and profits for
publishers affected by GBS who did not opt out of Google's publishing partner agreement for
broader access to previews of works still in copyright.

Third, it seems that GBS may simultaneously vindicate the public interest in expanded
access to the world's cultural heritage and the pecuniary interests of authors and publishers in
recouping the substantial fixed costs of book and periodical production and distribution.
Analyzing this virtuous circle can help us begin to theorize the relationship between the Internet
industry, the producers of cultural products, and the wider public. This relationship is also
visible with other advanced Internet services such as YouTube or DailyMotion, which may
increase viewership of copyrighted works that they may infringe, such as television shows.

Obviously, this seems to go beyond just Google's book search, in showing that greater access can certainly lead to greater revenue and profits for those who embrace it. Definitely another worthwhile paper to read on the subject.